Ignoring Red Flags (Cunningham) --WaPo Editorial

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101802091.html?referrer=email

Ignoring Red Flags
How secret earmarks and cowed staff let Duke Cunningham trade contracts for bribes

Thursday, October 19, 2006; A28



RANDY "DUKE" Cunningham couldn't have done it on his own. The California Republican, now serving time for taking $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors, was enabled in his criminality by a system that empowers members of key congressional committees to earmark funds for favored entities, by the secrecy surrounding intelligence spending, and by the compliance of congressional staff members and others who acceded to Mr. Cunningham's spending demands despite their misgivings.

A devastating report -- actually, the devastating executive summary of a still-secret report -- by a special counsel to the House intelligence committee found that the corrupt congressman steered between $70 million and $80 million in government spending to defense contractors Mitchell J. Wade and Brent R. Wilkes. The public deserves to see the full 23-page unclassified version of the report, which has been ready since July. Even more, it deserves to know whether any of those complicit in Mr. Cunningham's misdeeds will be disciplined and how such abuses will be prevented in the future.

The most troubling portion of the report concerns how Mr. Cunningham bullied committee staff members into going along with his funding demands despite their concerns about whether tax dollars were being spent wisely. Mr. Cunningham wasn't only a member of the intelligence panel, the report notes, but also sat on the House Appropriations subcommittee in charge of defense spending. As the summary concludes, Mr. Cunningham's membership on a committee "with the power to impact key priorities and his willingness to pressure and intimidate staff members were key to the success of the Wilkes/Wade funding requests." In particular, Mr. Cunningham used his clout to get Mr. Wade's company, MZM Inc., funding for a project at the Counterintelligence Field Activity agency, the Pentagon's newest intelligence arm.

"Because of Cunningham's insistence, staff agreed to support this project, despite staff's concerns that it was a 'pork barrel' project and a waste of taxpayer money," the summary said. Bad enough, but even worse is this: "Over time, staff learned of numerous 'red flags' associated with the counterintelligence project, including frequently expressed questions about the ethics and integrity of Wade, doubts about the value of the project and MZM's performance, and grave concerns about the propriety of the Cunningham-Wade relationship. Despite these red flags, the responsible . . . staff members continued to accept and support Cunningham's growing requests for this project" from 2003 through 2006.

This is an outrageous dereliction of duty. So what is the response of Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.)? Mr. Hoekstra has made a useful change in requiring that committee members' earmarks be approved by the chairman and the ranking Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.). But he sounds more unhappy with the move by Ms. Harman to unilaterally release the report than about the findings themselves. Indeed, Mr. Hoekstra said in a news release that "it is reassuring that the committee's independent counsel has found no instances of wrongdoing on the part of other committee members or the committee's staff." If Mr. Hoekstra considers this report reassuring, you have to wonder: What is it that might raise a red flag for him?